It should have been an easy lift for New York mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani. When a horde of anti-Israel protesters harangued Jews attending an event at a Manhattan shul last Wednesday night, shouting, among other current favorites, “Death to the IDF” and “Globalize the Intifada,” all he had to do was what any responsible public servant would do: Condemn the harassment.
Something along the lines of what current New York Mayor Eric Adams said, denouncing the chants as “vile” and the protesters as “sick and warped.”
Or at least something like what New York Governor Kathy Hochul, who endorsed Mr. Mamdani, had to say: “No New Yorker should be intimidated or harassed at their house of worship. What happened [Wednesday] night at Park East Synagogue was shameful and a blatant attack on the Jewish community. Hate has no place in New York.”
Well, the mayor-elect did have a spokesperson, Dora Pekec, inform media that her boss “has discouraged the language [columnist’s note: He refuses to condemn it] used at last night’s protest and will continue to do so” and that “He believes every New Yorker should be free to enter a house of worship without intimidation.”
But, Ms Pekec took pains to add that “these sacred spaces should not be used to promote activities in violation of international law.”
Come again?
What she, in Mr. Mamdani’s name, was insinuating is that, since the event at the shul was being held by Nefesh B’Nefesh, a nonprofit that assists in Jewish immigration to Israel from North America, the hateful protests were, well, justified.
Asked to clarify those disturbing words from Ms. Pekec’s statement, the Mamdani campaign said they were “specifically in reference to the organization’s promotion of settlement activity beyond the Green Line,” which “violates international law.”
Balderdash.
International law, which includes the Fourth Geneva Convention, prohibits the transfer of an occupying power’s population to territory it seized.
The US government does not consider the territories of Yehudah and Shomron (colloquially, the “West Bank”—the term given it by Jordan in 1949, when it overtook the British Mandate area and ethnically cleansed it of Jews) to be “occupied.”
And for an obvious reason. “Occupied” implies that it had belonged to a different state previously. Jordan’s annexation of the territory 76 years ago was not recognized by the international community even then; and Jordan, in any event, does not lay claim to it today. Great Britain’s mandate to serve as the administration of the entire area—today’s Israel, Yehudah, Shomron and Gaza—expired back then as well.
So the “West Bank” was no man’s land when Israel took it over in 1967.
Yes, there was, to be sure, a “Palestine” at the time. What is today called Israel.
But, entirely for the sake of argument, let’s allow Mr. Mamdani his fantasy, that Yehudah and Shomron are somehow “occupied” even in the absence of any “occupy-ee.”
Were that the case, what international law would prohibit, under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, would be the “forcible transfer” of current residents from the occupied territory, and the “transfer” of parts of the occupying power’s own civilian population into that territory.
Israel has done neither, of course. And Israeli citizens have every right to move, as individuals, to Yehudah and Shomron. (Whether they are wise to do so is something beyond the scope of our topic here.)
And, all the more so, non-Israelis who wish to move to anywhere in Israel or areas it controls. Like those whom Nefesh B’Nefesh assists by providing people of all ages in the pre- and post-aliyah process with employment guidance and networking, with help navigating the Israeli system, and with social guidance and counseling.
When Mr. Mamdani takes office, he will perforce be interacting with New York’s Jewish citizenry and the alphabet soup of Jewish organizations. But, while those citizens and groups will show him the respect his office deserves, they will be wise to remember just whom they are dealing with.
Last week, he not only demonstrated, once again, his hatred for Israel, but also lifted the hood on the engine of his animus: an abysmal ignorance of history and law.
And he demonstrated, too, his tolerance.
Of threats against Jews.
To read more, subscribe to Ami
